Punditry

In an article about dissent within the Catholic Church in the Archdiocese of Portland and the Diocese of Baker in Oregon.

The Rev. Thomas Farley, pastor of Greger’s parish, St. Clare Church in Portland, seems to see the church as a very big table, one that ought to value dialogue.

The Catholic Catechism, an 800-page book that outlines the church’s faith and doctrine, declares that there is a hierarchy of truth without spelling out what that hierarchy is, Farley says. He has his own ideas of what that hierarchy may be, and so do his parishioners.

"Christ and human beings are mysteries that can’t be captured in words," he says. "To pull people out of smaller perceptions and into bigger ones, (how one does that) that, too, is a mystery. Dialogue is so important, my talking and my listening in order to expand my experience and this heritage of faith."

So let me get this straight. The Catechism is insufficient since human beings are mysteries that can’t be captured in words and the solution for this is to dialogue. Last time I checked dialogue required words. His statement on the hierarchy of truths is less than truthful. When the Catechism talks about this subject it places dogmas of the Church at the top of that order. That they have their "own ideas of what this hierarchy might be" is not surprising. They reverse what God did in Genesis and place their own image and likeness on the Church. I heard a homily a couple a weeks ago where the priest who is in charge of a Catholic schools admitted that he never read the new Catechism and also called it a 800 page book. He said he preferred imagination when teaching which I guess makes sense since when I have heard him preach it was pretty close to fiction compared to Catholic theology. So I guess the only thing that progressive priests agree about the Catechism is that it is a 800 page book.

The article goes on with the typical progressive cliches about the Church changing in the past and needing to change to prevent from becoming stagnant. Also included is the oxymoron "faithful dissent" giving as example Saints and other who bucked the Church. What they never mention is that in such cases of reform is that is was some in the Church’s hierarchy who were actually dissenting from Church teaching and that the reformers being faithful to Church teaching were calling them back. Just as we as sinners are constantly in need of reform, so are all the members of the Church from the laity to those in religious life or with Holy Orders. But we are to reform to the truth, not pick what are the truths in which we will reform to. Normally if we look at our own beliefs and then decide that it is the Church that needs reforming instead of ourselves – we have gotten it exactly backwards. To say for example that the Church can change its teaching on homosexuality is also to say that sometime in the future they could change it back. If these teaching can change then why not the teachings on helping the poor?

Linda Dove and Judy Ringle are both members of St. Mary parish in Corvallis. The two women organized a reading group that has been meeting for several months. Right now, they’re discussing "In Search of Belief," a study of the Apostles’ Creed written by Sister Joan Chittister, a Benedictine sister who’s written dozens of books.

Some Catholics from St. Mary’s have challenged the group, which had met on church property with the parish priest’s permission. Now they’re back to meeting "off campus," Dove says.

"To question is not to deny," she says, paraphrasing Chittister. Love and Ringle are dismayed by the implication that they are not "faithful" Catholics.

"Don’t call me a dissenter," says Ringle, 66. "I am a faithful Catholic who loves the church and assents to the movement of the Holy Spirit in this era."

Dove, who is 51, says she’s been called "Catholic to the bone" and only recently been criticized because she has spoken in favor of inclusive language and the ordination of women.

Both women wonder why it is hard to find a place inside their church to study, talk and pray about issues that are not easy to accept or reject for any number of reasons. What they want, they insist, is a discussion.

"Discussion is of the essence," Chittister says in an interview. "Discussion is why you have theological study.

Theological study is belief seeking understanding, not justifying your own opinions and wanting the Church to understand them. There is just so much mistaken thought here. To want to dissent from Church teaching and at the same time not to be called a dissenter is ridiculous. Why is it that progressives only think that the Holy Spirit is moving in this era. Do they think that the Holy Spirit is a slacker that just waited all these years to finally influence the Church? This is more akin to the Protestant view of things who sees church history as starting at the time of Luther. Or that the Holy Spirit now wants to contradict what was inspired in scripture? This of course is why there has be so many attacks on the Bible so as to specifically deny that it was inspired and that their own beliefs are the ones inspired. Theological study first and foremost requires humility. I know myself like most converts did not just one day see that the Catholic Church was right in all its teachings. It took must struggle to start to see where I had been wrong and where I had to discard what were my own beliefs. This is not an easy process, especially when there are some of your own sins attached to a specific teaching.

"Nothing has been settled, finally, in the Catholic Church. The church spent 300 years discussing the nature of Jesus. We have to assume that the Holy Spirit goes on working."

So I guess Sr. Chittister if nothing has been finally settled then it could still turn out that the Council of Nicea was wrong and that Arius was right? We come to a deeper understanding of mysteries, not a different understanding. Arius idea was seen as novel at the time and specifically not as something that had be taught by Apostles and the Church put the question to bed and you can not believe that Jesus isn’t divine and call yourself a faithful Catholic. You can no longer have a discussion as to whether Jesus is divine or to dialogue on the subject without being branded truly as a heretic.

In her lifetime, Chittister points out, the church told Catholics that they "would go to hell" it they ate meat on Fridays and received Communion in their hands. Now Catholics may eat meat on Fridays, except during Lent, and Communion in the hands is a practice of the church, she says.

This is exactly the problem with dissenters is that their arguments are intellectually vapid. For all their talk about nuance they see Church law as black and white and make no distinctions between divine law and Church law pertaining to penitential practices. Jimmy Akin had an excellent post on this subject not too long ago. The reason they bring up cases like this to justify their opposition to Church teaching is that this is the only intellectual argument they have. Unfortunately even this weak argument is sufficient for some to continue to justify their own beliefs.

FRANCE’S Catholic Church won an injunction from the courts today to ban a leading fashion house’s advertising poster, which is based on Leonardo da Vinci’s famous painting of Christ’s Last Supper.

The advertisement – for Marithe and Francois Girbaud – shows designer-clad women in the place of Jesus and the apostles, one of them with her arms around a half-naked man in jeans.

Judge Jean-Claude Magendie ruled that display of the advertisements on street hoardings was "a gratuitous and aggressive act of intrusion on people’s innermost beliefs".

"The offence done to Catholics far outweighs the desired commercial goal," he said.

He ordered that all posters on display should be taken down within three days. The association Belief and Liberties, which represented the church, was also awarded costs.

Earlier the association’s lawyer Thierry Massis told the court the advertisement was deeply hurtful to Catholics.

"When you trivialise the founding acts of a religion, when you touch on sacred things, you create an unbearable moral violence which is a danger to our children. Tomorrow Christ on the cross will be selling socks," he said.

But lawyers for Girbaud argued that to prohibit the image would be an act of censorship.

"The work is a photograph based on a painting, not on the bible," said the company’s lawyer Bernard Cahen.

"There is nothing in it that is offensive to the Catholic religion.

"It is a way of showing the place of women in society today, which is a reflection of our changing values." [Source] [Ad online here]

Well I think not just Catholics but all Christians would find this ad offensive and I don’t even see how it is effective marketing of a product. The description at the top of the article does not truly describe just how bad the ad is. The defense that the ad is based on a painting and not the Bible is truly silly, as if Leonardo Da Vinci conceived the painting who cloth or is that whole canvas?

In an article about Bishop Robert Carlson.

Part of that potential, in Carlson’s view, is a forceful proclamation of moral teachings to both candidates and voters. Last summer, he wrote in a church publication that Catholic politicians "cannot, on the one hand, support abortion rights and on the other, be a Catholic in good standing."

In a letter to the Sioux Falls’ Argus Leader on Nov. 3, Carlson called it a "fallacy" that Catholics can weigh issues besides abortion in deciding how to vote.

"Under this philosophy, one can weigh 1 million abortions each year against the war, health care, taxes or farm policies — and this is a lie," Carlson wrote.

But Carlson took a more moderate stand this week, saying he does not believe it’s a sin for Catholics opposed to abortion to vote for politicians who favor abortion rights if, for example, Catholic voters feel strongly about a candidate’s position as a peace advocate.

That places Carlson in the mainstream of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. This week, he declined to say whether his political pronouncements are likely to ripple the waters of Michigan politics.

"I’m the new boy on the block," he said, indicating that he prefers to wait and listen for a while.

I highly doubt that the Bishop said any such thing. Throughout the article quotation marks were used for the Bishop’s statements, but no direct quotation was provided for the supposed "moderate stand." Considering the controversy concerning his previous statements to have such a flip-flop would be news and that statement would be the most important part of the article, so why no direct quote? Another news article took this story and I believe was rather deceptive in its use of quotations marks around what the other reporter wrote concerning this one statement since you get the impression it was a direct quote. That article was titled "Carlson moves to the center on abortion" which is pretty dishonest considering it was based on no direct quote and not even reflective of what the Bishop allegedly said. In a related note Archbishop Charles "get that man a red hat" Chaput gave an excellent talk to the City Club of Denver about news coverage regarding himself.

Some of you may remember that a year ago I was part of a rally on the Capitol steps to protect state funding for the poor and homeless. But you didn’t read about it in the Rocky or the Denver Post, because they didn’t cover it.

Last September, just a few weeks before the election, I preached a homily to 5,000 people at Red Rocks, and I had them repeat out loud three times that if we forget the poor, we’ll go to hell. That’s one of the principles of Catholic social teaching. If we forget the poor, God will forget us. By our indifference, we will damn ourselves. But you didn’t read about that in the press either, because – again — nobody covered it.

Our diocesan website has at least 18 articles I’ve written and talks I’ve given against the death penalty in the past few years. They’re just a fraction of what I’ve said and done against capital punishment for more than three decades. The press covered that one time recently — when I criticized our Republican governor.

Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Denver is the largest non-government provider of aid to the poor in the Rocky Mountain region. As a Church, more than 80 percent of our time, resources, ministry personnel and lobbying efforts go to issues that have nothing to do with abortion. But you’ll never see that on anybody’s front-page either, because it isn’t news.

My point here isn’t to criticize the press. Both of our local papers have excellent religion reporters, and – not always, but in general – the Church gets fair treatment in the media. My point is that Catholics have always been active on a very wide range of political issues, both individually and as a Church. This is normal and sensible. It’s so normal that nobody pays attention – until they disagree. [Full Transcript] [Via Ten Reasons]

There is a somewhat amusing Congress Instant Workshop Generator at the home page for the Religious Education Congress and it generated the following from the questions it asked.

Combining liturgy with rugby in today’s world

Internationally renowned speaker Curt Jester will demonstrate his fascinating, in-depth knowledge of Blogging. Jester employs the unusual methodology of combining his Blogging expertise with the sport of rugby, from which Curt has coined the termed " Skunk". Curt has appeared on the TV show Stargate SG1 and on EWTN radio, delivering the now-famous line " More than a job it’s an adventure." Jester will also sing a number of songs, including the theme song from Stargate SG1, since it has been a very important part of his life.

About Curt Jester
Even though Curt Jester has only been considered an expert for 66 days and 45 minutes, his grasp of the subject is uncanny. Curt is a sought-after author, contributing to publications like This Rock and National Catholic Register newspaper. Jester grew up in the small, lesser-known town of Jacksonville, Florida, currently resides in Hawaii but has plans to return and settle in Philippines next year. Jester holds numerous degrees, including those of B.A., B.S., M.A., Ph.D., and the prestigious C.F.

Though it does make you wonder if some of the actual congress workshops were similarly generated – that at least would be the most charitable diagnosis of the following real examples.

Enter the Journey! Exploring the “Liturgical School Year”
Well-known liturgical dancer and choreographer Donna Anderle has served on liturgy committees for several national associations and conferences. Anderle co-founded “The Good News Company,” a touring group, and operates her own dance studio. Presently, she is Assistant Liturgy Director at Summit Country Day School in Cincinnati, Ohio, and teaches at the Cincinnati Ballet Company as well as at Northern Kentucky University.

Six Steps to Cultivate the Creative Catechist

Mystagogical Catechesis at the Heart of Catechumenal Ministry

The Mission-Driven Parish: Hope for the Future Faithful Remnant

Multiple Intelligences for Personal Changes

God and the Sandwich Generation

Sister Catechist and Sister Media Visit the Museum

Crossing the Unknown Sea: Work as a Pilgrimage of identity

Here’s the Church, Here’s the Steeple, Open the Doors, Where Are All the Young Adult People?

That might actually have been a good workshop to go to since if you did the opposite of whatever they said it would probably work. Unfortunately most of the advice we get on revitalizing the church is from reverse-Cassandra’s. Cassandra the daughter of Priam had the curse of knowing he future but having no one believe it. We are cursed by progressives talking about being prophetic and unfortunately being listened to.

Making Your Special Event More Memorable Through Music and Drama

Have you ever said, “We only have a month. What are we going to do for our program?” Around every corner there’s another event to prepare for. Why not have a musical program that not only reinforces the importance of Christian education but also enhances your students’ exposure to the world of music and movement? Whether it’s Mother’s Day, graduation, Christmas or Easter, we’ll help you prepare with simple songs, motions and ideas that are sure to leave “fingerprints” on the heart. We will provide you with hands-on tools and ideas to help eliminate your stress!

Why do I have the feeling that their drama suggestions for Easter would not eliminate stress but heap in on my instead. I think I will leave fingerprints on my heart to my cardiologist.

Not Another New Song

We will explore ways to wake up a sleepy assembly by invigorating the music they already know and by careful introduction of new music. Come and sing new music “hot off the press” and find out how to sing old music in new ways!

How about singing older songs the old way? Now if I slipped in some fake names could you easily spot the difference? A kind of workshop Turing test. But alas they are all real. I am also not saying that even the listed workshops were not orthodox in their teaching, though given the conferences past performance I would convert to metrics and not touch most of them with a ten meter pole.

One of the biggest reasons for celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church is the "whole idea of the spousal relationship that we have with the church," said the Rev. David Beckman, pastor of the the Wright Catholic Community, which includes parishes in Belmond, Clarion and Eagle Grove.

The priest represents Christ, and the church is the bride, Beckman said. One of the reasons priests wear black is because of the symbolism of dying to self as they live for Christ.

The Catholic Church is universal, Beckman said. Its reach is broader than the church in America.

In parts of the world, particularly in Africa and Latin America, vocations to the priesthood are increasing, Beckman said. There are conservative dioceses in the United States that also see no lack of vocations to the priesthood.

The tradition of celibacy has a long history within the Roman Catholic Church. As monasteries developed in the fifth century, more men focused their lives solely on God and lived a celibate life, Beckman said.

Clergy could be married up until the 12th century when the Roman Catholic Church adopted the practice of a celibate clergy, said the Rev. Phil Gibbs, director of vocation awareness in the Archdiocese of Dubuque. [Source]

I have often heard this that the law of celibacy was instituted in the 12th century and have even heard it in a homily or two. Unfortunately it is not quite accurate. The argument relies on the same mistake that some Protestants use against the Church, for example saying that the Council of Trent added books to the Bible. It is true that it wasn’t until the First Council of Lateran in 1123 that many questions regarding celibacy were finally codified for the Latin Church, but it is quite untrue that celibacy for those in holy orders was not a consistent practice of the Church for much longer. The Spanish Council of Elvira (between 295 and 302) imposed celibacy on all three holy orders. There of course has always been those who lived celibate lives from the beginning of the Church and this became more of the norm over time. It was more of a matter of choice up to the time of Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, but increasingly after that it became a required discipline. There was a lot of laxity of enforcement of this rule and the scandal caused at times kept bringing the subject up until it was finally normative. Even the Eastern Church moved towards a celibacy requirements as a precept for bishops around 692. Celibacy is of course only a discipline and not a matter of faith. I just wish it’s origins wouldn’t be down played as a comparatively recent development in Church history. The Catholic Encyclopedia has a more in depth article on the subject.

It looks like what happened in the U.S. during the presidential election is moving North.

COBALT, Ontario, March 3, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Catholic priest said he would deny Communion to his parishioner – Catholic NDP Member of Parliament for Timmins-James Bay, Charles Angus – because of his support for same-sex “marriage” legislation.

Pastor of Angus’s St. Patrick’s parish in Cobalt, Fr. John Lemire, told LifeSiteNews.com Thursday that Angus’s position became public on January 19, after the Northern News published a story stating the MPs position. Fr. Lemire sent a private letter the following day to Angus, expressing his “shock and disappointment,” and reminding him of his “duty as a Catholic to uphold the teachings of the Church.”

“I explained in the letter that he was scandalizing members of our faith community,” Fr. Lemire explained. “I asked him to reconsider his position” on the issue. Fr. Lemire explained that, after Mass the following weekend, Angus told him he would be back in the riding in a couple of weeks, and would arrange a meeting then. Fr. Lemire never heard back from him, he said.

Later, February 16, while an NDP member was addressing the issue of same-sex “marriage” in parliament, Fr. Lemire said he happened to be watching the parliamentary channel, and noticed all NDP members responding to the speech with a standing ovation. “I called Charlie and left a message on his cell phone to express how deeply shocked and dismayed I was for his public support of same-sex ‘marriage,’” Fr. Lemire said. The next day, Angus returned the call, at which time Fr. Lemire explained to him “his position was inconsistent with the teachings of the Church,” and that his continued support for the legislation meant “there would be consequences.”

Angus asked if he would be unwelcome at church, to which Fr. Lemire responded that whether “saints or sinners,” everyone is welcome, but that his position would mean he is “outside of communion with the Church.” Fr, Lemire told Angus he would be denied communion if he persisted in his position, and voted in favour of the legislation. Fr. Lemire said he would not deny Angus communion until his vote is cast, and then only after telling him by registered letter, that he would be denied Communion if he presents himself.

And a story yesterday via Relapsed Catholic:

TORONTO – The Catholic Bishop of Calgary says if it was up to him, he would consider excommunicating Paul Martin over his government’s plan to legalize same-sex marriage.

Bishop Fred Henry said yesterday the Prime Minister’s political views clash so severely with the teachings of the Catholic Church that he no longer deserves to receive Communion.

The outspoken bishop has made similar remarks in the past, but in an interview yesterday on The Michael Coren Show, he went so far as to suggest the Roman Catholic Church should consider the rare step of excommunication, which would prohibit Mr. Martin from receiving the Eucharist during Mass.

"I would have to consider it, yes," Bishop Henry said when asked what he would do if the decision was his to make.

"You’re either with the Church or you’re not," he said of the same-sex marriage debate.

"And if you’re not with the Church, it’s not the Church that’s giving you the hard time.

"You are separating yourself from the Body of Christ, and that becomes a personal decision that you have to deal with."

Numerous Catholic leaders have decried Mr. Martin’s support for gay-marriage legislation, accusing him of turning his back on his faith. Among the most vocal critics is Bishop Henry, who once suggested former prime minister Jean Chretien, also a devout Catholic, could lose his "eternal salvation" by trying to push a gay-marriage law through Parliament.

"When we’re dealing with a politician, it’s frustrating," Bishop Henry said yesterday.

If history repeats itself pretty soon the Canadian bishops will appoint a commission to study the matter. The head of the commission will go to Rome and speak to Cardinal Ratzinger, he will then come back and report the opposite of what the Cardinal said. The Canadian Bishops will then issue a letter that has as many teeth in it as Methuselah did when he reached 969.

I am not quite sure how to take this news. [via Jimmy Akin]

Fittingly, just ten days after the death of Sr Lucia dos Santos, the last survivor to witness the appearances of the Virgin Mary at the Portuguese town of Fatima in 1917, Mel Gibson has bought the rights to the book ‘Stealing from Angels’.

Brian Dullaghan’s novel tells the story of a young Irish man who escapes a dreary life in his hometown only to slip into a life of major crime in New York. Everything changes when he meets Maria and he jumps ship again, this time to Maria’s hometown in Italy. However, blissful happiness does not follow and when the couple are connected to the murder of Pope John Paul and the third secret of Fatima, things really implode.

‘Stealing from Angels’ is a work of fiction that tells the tale of a man who shoulders a huge secret and trusts no one.

I could find out hardly anything on this book which does not seem to have any customer reviews anywhere. The only mention of the book I found was a person who liked it and it reminded them of The Da Vinci Code. The author Brian Dullaghan has written another book called "Immaculate Heart" and the review for it starts "Shame on the Church – again" and the "People who bought this book also bought" section lists three of Dan Browns’ novels. Of course this is just a fictional novel (as if that mattered in Dan Brown’s case), yet any storyline that says Pope John Paul I was killed and talks about the third secret of Fatima is not bound to end well. Though it is interesting how a unknown book by an unknown author got the attention of Mel Gibson. Though maybe this movie will be a sequel to his other movie "Conspiracy Theory."

While listening to the Hugh Hewitt show the other day I was rather disappointed to hear what David Alan White (who is a Catholic) had to say. Usually when he is on the show it was one of my favorite segments. He is an instructor at the Naval Academy and usually talks on Shakespeare and other great literary authors. When asked about Mel’s new movie and Fatima he unfortunately when into conspiracy theory mode about the third secret not actually being revealed and how it was suppose to be revealed in 1960. He then gave a web URL for Fr. Gruner’s Fatima Crusader (I am not going to link to it). So I guess it is no surprise about where he got his information. Fr. Gruner is under a ‘a divinis’ suspension and has no faculties to give the sacraments. He is also behind the newspaper Catholic Family News of which I had the displeasure to read once.

It seems highly ironic that a disobedient priest is touting the message of Mary at Fatima. Let it be done according to my will is not exactly a Marian signature. It is quite apparent that he has twisted the words of Sister Lucia and he will not even take her word that the consecration to Russia was adequately performed. Progressives who look at the secular culture to replace the Gospel anger me, but what angers me even more is radical traditionalists who support much that is orthodox but go over the edge on some subjects; whether it is the Mass or a Marian apparition. This is probably because I am sympathetic so some of their complaints and when they start of go off the deep end it does not help the cause. Both progressives and radical traditionalists are really just two sides of the same coin of disobedience. Both wrap themselves as proclaiming that they alone know the truth and are fighting for the Church hierarchy to hear their message. Both are willing to downplay or to ignore what the Pope has said and some of them are willing to either go into schism or a virtual schism where they have all but departed from Church authority.

I just hope the Mel Gibson’s project will generate more light than heat on Fatima. Fatima is a reaffirmation of the Gospel and the message for us to fast and pray is nothing new. For a good web site on Fatima I would recommend Fr. Fox’s Fatima Family Apostolate (which has official Vatican encouragement).

My God, I believe, I adore, I hope and I love You! I ask pardon of You for those who do not believe, do not adore, do not hope and do not love You!
(Angel’s Prayer at Fatima)

Judging by some comments in my link to the SoDakMonk‘s fisking of John L. Allen I take it that some were not pleased with it. As for myself I have often enjoyed some of the information and insights that Mr. Allen offers of the Vatican, but there has been times when things he has said definitely fit more within the National Catholic Reporter’s view of things, not surprising since he works for them. He must be on a modernist world tour because fresh from his appearance at the wildly heterodox annual Religious Education Congress in L.A.he is going to speak at Long Islands’ VOTF chapter. Not exactly a move to separate yourself from the progressive movement. As a reporter how is it that you can attend such a conference and make no comments about the wacky theology and liturgical abuses that occurred there?

Much of VOTF is a wolf in sheep’s clothing where they have pulled the lambskin of the abuse scandal and participation of the laity as an excuse to further their own agenda. I am not saying that all VOTF members are this way, but almost al of their leadership is. Crisis magazine published an inside look at Long Island’s VOTF chapter. Their leadership is composed almost entirely of dissenters and the speakers they choose are also known dissenters. Their web site is full of "feminist theology" and they have advocated women’s ordination. I find their recommended reading page as a sure guide as to what to avoid. It’s prayer recommendations include a book that by a priest whose writings have been denounced by the Vatican. Of course how in the world could you come up with a recommended reading page on prayer and not find one author with Saint in front of their name. Being a lay Carmelite I am prejudiced towards St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila, but their both being Doctors of the Church should go for something.

So who do they find that they recommend as eloquent. Well no other then the usual suspects. Catholic Theological Society, Bishop Gumbleton, Sister Joan Chittister, Fr. Donald Cozzens, and even an ironically titled article "The Hierarchy’s Need to Listen" by Cardinal Mahoney. Also included are articles that attack recent Vatican documents on the liturgy. It is no surprise that this chapter like many others is banned from the use of diocesan/parish facilities. Their goal is not simply more cooperation of the laity in the Church, but instead is a Protestant of both Church government and theology. Why is it that Mr. Allen has no problem speaking at an organization which is banned from use of Church property? I don’t think is is truly prudent to follow a list of speakers who have advocated for contraception, abortion, homosexuality, and women’s ordination.

Via Hugh Hewitt is this report:

"The Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, has said that if the Republicans made good on their threat and ruled filibusters out of order, he would see to it that Senate business came to a halt."

Well as a general principle I am all for the Senate’s business grinding to a halt. Though I am not quite sure how the minority party leader is going to make good on this threat since last time I checked he is the minority party leader because Democrats are in the minority (fancy that). He can’t pull a Dirty Harry and ask "Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?" because we know how many bullets are left in his gun and that the GOP currently has more of them. One thing though we need a nuclear freeze on the phrase "nuclear option." Judging by Sen. Specter press conference yesterday if he had also appeared on Groucho Marx’s "You bet your life" and the secret word was "nuclear option" that duck would have been coming down every five seconds giving the Senator 50 bucks. We need to disarm the phrase "nuclear option", heck cut the red and the blue wires. Republicans should only be calling it the "Constitutional Option" which would replace the current super-majority gridlock option.

Hugh Hewitt asks in his latest Vox Blogolli "Does the Senate GOP Go McClellan or Grant if Harry Reid "Goes Gingrich?" Well I say Grant as in General Grant because up to now the Republican leadership has only been given us a Grant as in Lou Grant (Ed Asner). The GOP has had a crusty exterior with a soft heart letting liberals run all over them. Even Gingrich did not go fully Gingrich because in the game of Senate chicken he swerved off the road first avoiding the oncoming Main Stream Media and its starving government employee because of the shutdown reports.

The question is not should we wait to see if another judge is filibustered first, but that we should immediately ask for a change in Senate rules. It does not matter if Democrats play nicely or not in the future because the current 60 vote rule is extra- constitutional in the first place. It also doesn’t matter if Democrats some time in the future can use the 51 vote majority against us. What matters the most is following the Constitution and letting our Republic based on a representative majority be able to make the decisions. The Republican party believed in and supported the line item veto and approved it when Bill Clinton was President. Unfortunately is was later knocked down but this was still an excellent example of principle over partisanship. Why are Democrats so afraid of democracy? What is the fear of the full Senate actually voting up or down on judges. They can advise and consent away – nobody is stopping them. Currently they are preventing other senators their right to advise and consent by preventing judicial nominees.to come to the floor for a vote.

Democrats have been like Lucy and Republicans like Charlie Brown. We keep running up to kick the football and falling to the ground as Lucy once again pulls the football away. We made a bunch of silly compromises when Jumping Jim Jeffords defected from the GOP in the spirit of cooperation. How many times do we have to find ourselves looking up in the sky with stars revolving around our head tell we figure out the the Democrats are never going to play nice and leave the football in place for us to kick. Dump Charlie Brown and go all Ulysses on them, though I wouldn’t hold my breath on this actually happening.

What I find interesting about the whole Eason Jordan affair and his comments that lead to his firing is the media reaction to the story. Just like the Rathergate story this has been a case of "shoot the messenger" for bringing such news. They have trained their biased gattling guns on large swaths of the blogosphere to do anything but to deal with the facts of the story. Which means more personal attacks on the credibility of bloggers and comments on where they might blog from or the clothes they wear while doing it. As if the location they blog from or their attire is more important than whether the facts they reported are true or not.

If I want to be as credible as the main stream press maybe I will create an error page to post mistakes I make. It will be in really small print in a hard to read font on a web page not linked to my main page.

Another interesting thing is that it also shows the lie of the left when they say they support the troops. When Eason Jordan brutally slandered the military with the charge that they murdered journalists it was largely ignored. Serving in the military is hard enough without all the biased crap that gets said about us. This type of charge should have raised the indignation of anybody who really cares about the troops. When Mr. Jordan had previously charged that reporters were being tortured, this story also didn’t even show up till the latest debacle. So much for standing up for the honor of the troops. You can tell just how off the wall the charge was in that there was no concerted effort by the left to say that the story was true. Most likely they believed the story to be very possible and might have thought of it as "fake but accurate."